Well Martin,
I guess we're going to just have to be disappointed in each other. I apparently don't act right.
Yes Jerry, it seems to be. I acted not right too. My attitude is usually better. ;)
And it seems that you don't want to answer some simple questions about your work.
No Jerry. I was yesterday too tired late in the night here in europe.
For your information I have been to Dallas. I've stood in the locations of all the well-known photographers and as of 1998 it seemed to me that it would be possible to view a distant car and its wheel well over the Nix fence.
You have an outstanding memory to remember that it would be possible to view a distant car and its wheel well over the Nix fence some 11 years ago.
That, and the fact that I've actually worked with the Drommer Survey is what led me to ask the questions in the first place. Because it was obvious to me that you had no actual data on which to base your cad rendering.
Mhh, i assume you read not all what i told in this thread and the other i've linked.
My basis was infact the Drommer Survey map from 1978.
Martin, most people here have been around forums for a long time. It's really obvious when someone changes the subject because they don't want to answer uncomfortable questions. It's OK to admit a mistake. People respect that and I've admitted my share. But hiding behind outrage at my bad attitude is transparent to nearly everyone. Just a reminder.....
It appears to me that you have an issue to answer uncomfortable questions.
Take a look at the Greer thread. Ive found the topic and edited my previous post.
It's OK to admit mistakes. I agree. I've did that in the past here. Are you able to do the same?
I'am hiding outrage behind at your bad attitude? Sorry i don't understand. :o
"So, do you in fact actually know any elevations in the car park or have you just assumed some? Do you in fact actually know Nix's elevation or have you assumed it. Have you, in any way shape or form, accounted for the fact that the size of the possible wheel well would indicate that the attached car was far from the fence?
As i said in my previous posting take a look at WC E 2118. Rails are designed to be flat. I gather meanwhile images from the parking lot from 1963.
They are growing more and more.
The Nix elevation? Look at all that great images from Robin Unger (i can thank Robin not enough for that)
Yes, the maximum location was some 45-50 yards behind the fence. I told that earlier. Have you not read that shock2
You're the person who posted a photo showing almost an entire car over a higher portion of the fence than Nix's.
What? Where? An entire car incl. a wheel? You do hopefully not mean that image from 2007 where Duncan (no offense Duncan) have seen a car wheel?
Yet, you're "certain" that it can't be a car in Nix. Why?
Yes, i said that now very often. And also why. Should i repeat?
And because you're such an expert and because I really want to improve my skills can you please tell me the difference between the "heads" in Rick's photo and mine. Because I'm just too dumb to see the distinction and I really, really need your help."
You mean that enhancing that i did with your software and Rick's. Is this correct?
Well, there is no difference as you see.
The difference between Ricks software and Photoshop regarding "smooth bicubic" filter is obsolete.
I hoped you understand my joke.
Thank you
and all the best
Martin
